Saturday, 19 December 2009

Those - xenophobes and BNP supporters perhaps - who hate the idea of foreigners coming here and importing their barbaric and nasty practices of honour - may wish to take comfort. Perhaps they will be less likely to come here in the face of predictable family strife when a family member goes native and embraces the worst aspects of Britishness.

Poor Tulay Goren, the 15 year old truanting schoolgirl who got knocked up by a man twice her age - who had extra-marital sex under the age of consent. She had in fact integrated with local customs, practices and expectations.

Monday, 14 December 2009

"The law is like the wind and the people the grass. When the wind blows, the grass will bend."

The most evil are those who suffer it to be done in the name of liberal ideology, which permits only inaction or flabby ineffectual gestures in the name of tolerance and compassion. In short, it is our government and our political establishment which is evil in permitting evil, not discouraging it or pretending that it is not an evil.

Evil is committed when educated middle class campaigners of for traditional education dare not state the obvious for fear of ostracisation and denunciation.

The obvious is of course that family values are vulnerable to the depredations of female promiscuity.

But female promiscuity is the Sacred Cow that the British worship. To blaspheme against the slag and slapper and the unmarried single mum will result in social death or a life worse than death, apparently.

That is why emasculated men in fear of the feminazis remain silent. Nothing will change if the silence is not broken, but still the fearful silent men remain fearful and silent.

"One interviewee described a point in her life when she felt acutely that she was not the ‘most important person to anybody’. "

"Bridget’s melodramatic vision of herself dying ‘fat and alone, and found three weeks later half-eaten by Alsatians’ (Fielding, 1996) was spontaneously repeated with some seriousness by a number of the respondents, who related it to their own real experiences of being ill while living alone. These periods of sickness had forced issues of care into sharp relief, for although these were all short-lived, everyday illnesses, they had inspired visions of old age."

"The idea that there has been a ‘high price of liberation’, most often articulated through the ‘myth of having it all’ are now firmly established in the discussion of female equality."

" ... they risk being assessed as failures; emotionally cold or dysfunctional. "

"the ‘single girl’ tag is more difficult to claim as women reach their forties and tends to reinforce the difficulty of being recognized as an adult. The women in this study felt in particular, that getting their parents to see them as women rather than girls was sometimes difficult, as markers of adulthood were more difficult to construct and to gain recognition for. This respondent felt that having a partner would alleviate the responsibility her parents still felt towards her:

‘someone between me and them (her parents) would help enormously…it is not articulated…but it’s an awareness of a sense of responsibility towards me which they have, which I don’t want them to carry on having.’ "

"She herself doubted her adulthood; ‘in a funny sort of way I don’t really feel like a grown up woman. And I don’t know if that’s to do with the fact that I’m not married’. Once again we can see that what could be read at one level as a problem of unfair and inaccurate stereotyping, once probed, is revealed as having a deeper, more individual reality."

"Accounts which attempt to construct a more positive identity for single womanhood have tended to gloss over what may be a deeper reality to contemporary singleness that is problematic, ambivalent and much less easy to embrace as a positive ‘lifestyle’. Issues of intimacy, care and transitional experiences seem to be evident amongst a group predicted to become more numerous in the future; single, childless women who do not feel that they have actively chosen to be either of these things."

This is what a few decades of feminism have done for women. Happy about it, are we girls? Want more of it, do we? A lonely childless loveless old age living with our pet in our one-bedroom flat, scrimping and saving, wondering where the next meal is coming from, with mental health problems. Do we wish to condemn the next generation to this as well?

Having now stigmatised single women, I am just wondering if I can now sell the idea of the Domestic Partnership to them and perhaps some single men too, explained at:

Very briefly, it is an adult home-sharing agreement with optional sex and optional fidelity, based on economy and convenience.

The process of negotiating the terms is to substitute for courtship, to save the man buying meals for the woman and to save the woman from feeling she has to give a man sex before such things can even be discussed. Money is saved and virtue preserved.

Speed-dating for the middle-aged singleton, in other words.

The process will involve lawyers and is intended to be a substitute for marriage, with less onerous terms.

Friday, 4 December 2009

Vote for a short Conservative male with insufferably PC views, hated by his own party, with wife who by her own admission was a bit of a slag and a slapper, taller than him, who supports the other party.

Why did he let her give the interview?

If he did not let her do it and she went ahead anyway, then it shows breathtaking disloyalty. That, or she may be back on the bottle again.

Grounds for divorce, I would have thought.

Whatever the reasons, his judgment is called into question for

(a) marrying her(b) allowing her to do the interview(c) being unable to control her if she went ahead without his permission and gave it anyway despite his protestations

Pussy-whipped comes to mind.

Will enough people be stupid enough to vote for (and trust the judgment of) a short, pussy-whipped politician with an ex-slapper of a wife who used to be too fond of her drink? Maybe she is getting a taste of it again. She was drunk, stupid or disloyal when she gave the interview. Take your pick.

This is a matter that continues to incense me, though I recognise that we should all have become accustomed to the shit for brains policies of the liberal establishment by now.

One single woman's hurt feelings should not be put above the careers of two men with dependents in the name of equal opportunities when it is operational efficiency and the morale of the men who risk and sacrifice their lives in the Armed Forces that should be paramount.

This is such a truism that it appalls me that I have to point it out again and again yet receive something that is close to blank incomprehension.

Yes, I am saying that it does not matter if they disliked her for non-PC reasons. They have a right to dislike a colleague as I hope we all have a right to dislike someone and show it, however offensive that may be, provided it does not involve injury to person, damage to property or defamation.

How about a strike by Beefeaters if Mark Sanders Crooke is not reinstated? Now that would receive worldwide media coverage.

Of course this would also signal that we are so mad and silly that we are even riper and readier for exploitation and invasion.

A country that imposes PC-liberal values on its military, that willingly sacrifices operational efficiency in the name of equal opportunities that will do the country no good in fighting a war, that is happy to acknowledge that the career and feelings of one single Yeowoman is worth more than the careers and livelihood of two Yeoman and their dependents, deserves all that is coming to it.

Friday, 27 November 2009

Who's damn stupid idea was it to have women in the Armed Forces? And why do we not have the courage to admit that it was a very stupid idea proposed by stupid people accepted by even stupider people? This goes back to my previous wall post on the subject of this country being ruled by men who are really only women with dicks - senile, scared, demented women with flaccid dicks and shit for brains.

If there are any real men Beefeaters left they should down tools and go on strike, and risk being court martialled rather than put up for a moment longer with the way the Armed Forces are being run.

But we know they won't because these soldiers are too scared of losing their jobs and being accused of sexism, misogyny and male chauvinist piggery.

All they are fit for is to become cannon fodder in the unwinnable war of the inhabitants of Muslim lands they have invaded.

Stupid is as stupid does.

A US Official has at least chosen to resign over the conduct of the war, rather than wait for his pension like that idiot technophobe Sir Mike Jackson who is so dim he didn't even know how to switch his own mobile phone off when being interviewed by Stephanie Flanders.

It would not surprise me to learn that he even now remains ignorant of which button to press to either silence it or switch it off.

Tower spokeswoman Ruth Howlett said Cameron's entry in the online encyclopedia known as Wikipedia had been defaced as part of the campaign against her.

Did this Ruth Howlett perchance also hire Moira Cameron and conduct the investigation?

She was the one who conducted the investigation, apparently. Was she also the one who hired her? If so, should we doubt her judgment, integrity and impartiality?

There is a suggestion that Moira Cameron is a lesbian. Is Ruth Howlett a lesbian too? If they both are, are they having an affair? If they are having an affair is there not a suggestion of bias, if they have colluded to effect the removal of two heterosexual Yeomen Warders?

News has reached me that her uniform was not in fact damaged, and the defacement of her Wikipedia entry was to the effect that she is a lesbian.

If, as PC reasoning dictates, there is no disgrace in being a lesbian, then what is she complaining about?

So she lost her hair. Would a man complain about his colleagues if he was losing his hair?

Why should a woman be allowed to complain about her colleagues if she loses hers?

Is it one rule for women and another for men?

How does one go about inciting the 73 Yeoman of the Guard to go on strike in protest at the policy of allowing people like Moira Cameron in to grass up her colleagues and get them sacked because they didn't like her?

Thursday, 26 November 2009

The idea of the Domestic Partnership is not to negate the idea of romance but to save time and trouble.

As I have said, sex and fidelity is optional and can never be the ostensible reason to enter into or dissolve such a partnership.

One is therefore left with the practical social and economic reasons for forming such a partnership.

If romance flutters into such a relationship, it would be a delightful extra.

The conventional romantic view presupposes that romance should exist or even be manufactured and faked in order to justify such a relationship and be used to end it.

It is really speed-dating for grownups. Instead of courtship you have negotiations. This saves the woman from having sex with the man on spec and the man from spending his resources on hospitality and entertainment on women merely to test drive them, so to speak.

It would certainly be more economical, efficient and time-saving than conventional "romantic" methods.

Category 1(a) no longer has the father of her children living with her, if ever. (She is the lowest of the low.)

Category 1(b) has the father of her children still living with her. (She is not quite the lowest of the low yet. All that would need to happen is for him to walk out the door and she will become the lowest of the low.)

Let us call Category 1(b) Mother of Bastard Still Living With Father of Bastard ("MOBSLWFOB" or "MOBFOB" for short)

Category 2Divorcee AKA Divorced Single Mum ("DSM")
She may not be entirely to blame for her divorce if she was married to a brute who beat her and abused her children. However, at the very least she is guilty of marrying in haste and must repent at leisure.

Category 3Widow AKA Widowed Single Mum ("WSM")
She is the most blameless of all and most deserving of sympathy and charity. In some cases she may be envied because she is well-provided for. (There is however a possibility that she may be even more culpable than the Category 1 and Category 2 Single Mothers since she could have herself bumped off her late husband so that she could have the benefit of his property without the burden of his presence in the matrimonial home. In all cases one must assume that she is not to blame for her husband's death unless she has already been convicted of homicide.)

If females are the equal of men and men hit each other, what is the problem with hitting women, reasons an adolescent boy?

Adolescent females who are hit feel stupid, that is why they don't tell others, which would reinforce their self-image of being stupid.

The familiarity of contempt is directly related to easy and frequent sexual access to someone's body. The woman you have screwed enough times becomes a slag and slapper, especially when she didn't need much persuading in the first place.

Christine Barter of Bristol University, Senior Research Fellow for the Centre for Family Policy and Child Welfare, who spoke on the Today Programme seems utterly clueless. She is probably some unmarried lesbian academic with no contact with adolescents except when she interviews them for her research.

The solution is of course to have single sex schools and to tell girls not to be slags and slappers. Parents can tell their daughters that if they get knocked up by someone not their husband, they can expect to be taken into care where they will be paedophiliacally or hebephiliacally abused, which means they will probably go on to become an under-achieving drug addict/ prostitute/ porn actress / single mother with variously-fathered children who will become a parasite and cancer of society.

You will also disown or disinherit them, and you will do it too, though it really would hurt you more than it hurts them, which is quite a lot already.

Tell them nice and early before they even start thinking about boyfriends.

My solution is simple, effective and without cost, which means it will certainly be scorned and not adopted. The government prefers complicated, ineffectual and expensive solutions, as we well know.

To this end schoolchildren from 2012 will be told not to hit each other either at school, outside school or those with whom they are having sexual relationship.

It appears that the British government prefers to tell the world that adolescent British boys are promiscuous and savage and adolescent British girls are promiscuous and stupid, reinforcing the British self-image that we are all stupid, promiscuous and savage, instead of adopting the very simple measures that I have recommended above. Individual parents can of course do what they see fit, but perhaps British parents - especially the liberal ones - are just as promiscuous, stupid and savage and won't have regular access to my words of wisdom. If they did, they would ignore it because what I say satisfies their criteria of being judgmental, intolerant and uncompassionate.

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Can women have it all? Do they want it all? Or do they just want to be wives and mothers again, with husbands who work for them?

The problem in the West is that the men have become useless. Not only are men in the West now just women with dicks, they are poor and stupid, accustomed to getting easy and free sex because slags and slappers give it to them sex for next to nothing. (To be fair to these slags and slappers, they are told that sex with anyone is OK as long as they use contraceptives and the person asking for sex appears respectful and polite. This is what they are more or less told at their sex education classes in British state secondary schools.)

Because men are so useless, women therefore feel they have to find a career and this makes them less prepared to take any crap from men. This is what I would call Self-Reinforced Destruction. You have a problem and the action you take actually makes the overall problem worse.

I think it is sort of what happened when the Millennium Bridge wobbled, causing users to adjust their gait to keep their balance, causing it to wobble even more, until it was closed down.

It has been fixed though and is OK now.

I think I have just put my finger on The Reason for the fall of Western civilisation: feminism propped up at the expense of the taxpayer, who is now made to pay for single mothers and their bastards who will grow into the next generation of criminals and wasters.

This has already been happening for several generations now and the quality of the national gene pool is now perilously low. Slags and slappers are breeding with losers and wasters at the expense of the taxpayer.

We are still doing it though because Western governments are governed by men in the West who are just women with dicks. They are fools and knaves, cowards and hypocrites, feeble-minded yet tyrannical, too afraid to discuss such things because they might upset and, oooh, offend people.

Yes, I do mean these male MP who are so easily intimidated. Scared of Harriet Harman, are they? Have the little members of these Members shrivelled up in the frigidairium of feminism? Then get out of the f*cking frigidarium, stupid!

Vote: Should women have a referendum on whether they would give up their rights under the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts and in return reacquire the ability to become mostly wives and mothers again?

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Still, there are other parties for disgruntled Tories to protest vote for. Let us hope that the "Turnip Taliban" as the Metropolitan Metrosexual Tories at CCHQ call them, avail themselves of their voting options.

Police want to speak to this man [photo in report], who is suspected of committing an indecent act on a Barnes to Richmond train last month.

A 21 year old woman from Barnes boarded the train at4.35pm on October 2 and noticed the man sitting opposite was staring at her throughout the journey.

Investigating officer Marie Jeffrey said: "As he was nearly reached her destination, she realised the man had started indecently touching himself beneath his satchel while continuing to stare at her."

The woman got off the train at Richmond, while the man is thought to have travelled to Whitton.

PC Jeffrey added: "This was a very distressing incident for the victim and I am appealing for anyone who knows the man in the the picture to contact us."

Anyone with information can contact the British Transport Police on 0800 40 50 40 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

Oh dear. This is the first time I have ever felt sorry for someone suspected of masturbating on a train. He may not have been and even if he was, I would find it rather flattering that some man should choose to stare at me while masturbating, when there are so many much younger and more attractive women to stare at. I certainly would not take the time and trouble to complain of this experience to an over-zealous Investigating Officer who would rather deal with this sort of thing than catch criminals, and who should have known this is a non-crime because it does not even fulfill the elements of indecent exposure, ie the intentional exposure of one's body's privates in a manner that gives offense against accepted or prescribed behavior.

I urge us all to defy this ridiculous and oppressive non-law and call for the resignation of Marie Jeffrey by staring at each other on trains and mysteriously moving our hands under our shopping bags, briefcases and satchels ...

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

I wonder what the BNP will say about single mummery in their manifesto. Perhaps they will not even address the question in their manifesto for fear of alienating their own potential supporters, knowing of the tendency of the white proletariat to be illegitimate and their women to be single mums.

The white urban proletariat do not value education because the welfare state always provides and so don't mind sending their children to crap schools, which teach them nothing that would make them employable.

MPs and the liberal establishment, who do not have to send their children to crap comps, do not care about these people and will do nothing to address their education and training because it is more trouble than their job's worth.

Not only do the white urban proletariat suffer the problems of promiscuity, intoxication, single mummery, illegitimacy, pornography, divorce, paedophilia, low-achievement and whingeing victimhood, they find themselves on the receiving end of the contempt expressed for them by Muslims who despise this aspect of the host culture and don't want to be part of it.

If the government of such a depraved and degraded people invades Muslim lands for clearly spurious reasons, I imagine young Muslim hotheads might want to blow themselves up to express disapproval and to distance themselves from the British government under whom they live. Blowing yourself up to kill voters who keep voting unthinkingly for the same old crap parties with the same old crap policies is the strongest possible message a terrorist can possibly send, you would have thought. That, I imagine, would be the rationale behind suicide bombing by Muslims in this country.

But even they underestimate the stupidity of the British public.

Even now they rail about the numbers and powers of Muslims which their government has allowed in while doing nothing to address why they cannot stop immigration. This is because rich white people hate poor white people so much they would rather hire foreigners than poor white people.

Why are poor white people hated by rich white people? Because they are mostly illegitimate, illiterate, innumerate, intoxicated, criminal and unemployable.

The two parties who could combine to become the Third Political Party of Britain, ie BNP and UKIP, dislike and distrust each other.

The fools in Labour and the Tory Party who want an EU referendum (and thereby control immigration) but dare not vote UKIP or BNP because they fear to be associated with extremism, prefer to believe the lies and false promises their leaders tell them to keep them quiescent.

There is just a suggestion that the National Interest and Islam could form an alliance in order to more effectively destroy the arguments of totalitarian liberalism. They should first unite, and then fight each other later - after they have defeated the forces of liberalism, if they still want to fight each other.

The BNP and Muslims have more in common with each other than they would care to admit: both are feared and hated, both speak what they sincerely believe to be the truth, both are derided as extremists, both want the death penalty and corporal punishment and both are right about the folly of invading Muslim lands.

And both support family values.

Perhaps the groups we hate and fear are even now proving themselves to be extremely consistent and correct about the important things that concern us, and it would appear that the liberal establishment have been proving themselves to be extremely mistaken about many many many things for a very very long time.

Nationalists who admire Hitler should note that he found Islam a more attractive faith than Christianity.

He once remarked:

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.”

Is not the refusal of the flabby liberal establishment to actively discourage the numbers of a burgeoning underclass, of bastards and the obese, paedophiles and single mums, of the illiterate, ignorant and innumerate, their refusal to tackle the problem of education and training, indeed a systematic cultivation of human failure?

It should be noted that the Church of England overwhelmingly voted to ban BNP clergy, so we all know where the ideological loyalties of these Anglicans lie: with a failing government and a failed ideology of indiscriminate compassion, whose greatest God is Moral Relativism and whose greatest goddess is Sexual Liberation.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20091103i1.htmlshows that the Japanese are declining too, even though they have a vastly different culture, are quite authoritarian and have virtually no immigrants. Becoming a single mum there would turn you into a social pariah - and quite right too - so instead of having a problem of illegitimacy as we do in the West, they have a problem of not having enough children.

Well, the Chinese, when the current lot ages, will be having the same problem too, but in spades and shovelfuls. Perhaps the Japanese need a spot of immigration to refresh their society. Or perhaps war will make men men and women women again, who seek partnerships with each other for sex, protection and provision and invest in their future by having biddable high-achieving children.

Perhaps a bit of adversity is what is required and more than a bit of adversity is on its way, not just for the Japanese, but for all of us.

Monday, 2 November 2009

The female whale basically gets the males to pursue her. The ones who keep up with her get to mate with her, because he would be swiftest and strongest and most likely to have healthy offspring than the slower ones who couldn't keep up with her. At the very least a male should be able to keep up with a female in property, intellect or strength, or there is just no point.

This is obviously not rocket science, but tragically beyond the comprehension of the average unmarried single mum, who never heard of evolutionary psychology before getting herself knocked up.

Something lacking, then, in their sex education classes where they hand out contraceptives like sweets to eager children.

All the more reason to abolish the welfare state, because it is even now lowering the quality of the next generation's genetic inheritance.

In case you didn't know, the average Briton is infamous for his/her stupidity, self-pity, promiscuity, paedophilia, victimhood and illegitimacy. These traits have now been elevated into a British National Characteristic for which we are internationally known.

I am now addressing my mind to the question of marital rape now that I have discovered this is a question that is exercising Singaporeans.

While it is only humane to formally proclaim that a wife is not her husband's to treat as his sex slave, surely she must also be obliged to give him reasonable access?

It is therefore arguably unnecessary to have such a law, because if he rapes her regularly she would divorce him or run away, and if she gives him no sexual access whatseover he will seek sex elsewhere, thus jeopardising if not actually terminating the marriage.

In practice it is hardly ever invoked and was always meant as a sop to the feminists.

"The feminist revolution has been powered by male greed - for sex, money, and irresponsibility", says an anti-feminist.

I would add that the feminist revolution has also been driven by the stupidity of and promiscuity of women. Stupid because they have been persuaded that being promiscuous would be good for them. Some of them probably behave promiscuously, not because they even want to, but because they must to fit in and be one of the girls.

Typically, those who are now single mums can only whinge on about how hard it is to find another man and make ends meet.

Instead of bailing these women out with yet more benefits, why don't we let them sink under their own weight of stupidity and promiscuity. It would be cheaper and far more effective.

It is the only language they understand, or they will carry on getting knocked up by their low-life men and then whinge when they have to lie in their own badly-made beds.

Marry in haste repent at leisure.

Become an unmarried single mum, and you will ruin your life and subject your offspring to a life of disadvantage, under-achievement, delinquency and crime. You should also resign yourself to having illegitimate grandchildren and jump on the slide of generational decline. This is what in fact happens anyway, but most women appear to have difficulties acknowledging this and taking responsibility for their behaviour.

Typically, they look around for some man or government department to blame or bail them out, because they cannot look after themselves.

They are clearly having difficulties understanding the concept of moral hazard or think it does not apply to them because they are women. Either they cannot understand or they will not understand, because grasping and acting on the logic of this conclusion would mean sounding a bit like me, ie uncompassionate, intolerant and judgemental.

Being women, they think these qualities are unwomanly, so they continue to whinge, but continue to reject any solution that might work.

I wouldn't put these women in Homes for Fallen Women (or Foyers as Gordon Brown calls them), I would stop their child benefit and open Homes for Abandoned Children.

Prostitutes at least have the virtue of making men know that if they cannot get sex from a girlfriend or a wife they must pay for it, and that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The truth is that these men cannot get it for "free" from a woman because they are basically low-status men who are obviously not good husband and father material. Or if they are already married, they are unfortunate in not finding what they have sexually adequate or are insatiably depraved.

Paying for a prostitute reinforces the lower status of these men and sends a message to other men that they must up their game if they want their own woman in their own home.

I would also like to make unmarried mothers acknowledged to be of a lower status than prostitutes, because they are too stupid to even ask for payment. Allowing a man who cares nothing for you to impregnate you and then leave you holding the baby suggests just a bit of culpable stupidity, does it not?

A prostitute at least has the sense to ask for payment and is therefore both more useful to society (because her services have commercial value) and less culpably stupid.

Saturday, 31 October 2009

As for poetry, I am afraid the awful truth, gentlemen, is that women are more likely to write love poems to each other than to a man. A man would be embarrassed to receive one and wouldn't know how to respond, particularly if it was very good. The woman would be perceived to have demeaned herself in taking so much trouble over a mere man, and so it would be better for her if she could pass it off as a doggerel written in jest in an idle moment.

When a man writes poetry for a woman, and means it, it is invariably suffused with heroic metaphors, either that, or written in the tone of a conqueror enslaved.

"Do love letters written by men differ in style, sentiment and sincerity to those written by women?" You betcha. Much as I love Peter Mandelson, I have never felt the urge to express it in poetry.

My love poems to women however are real corkers and will one day become as famous as Sappho's fragments ....

Friday, 30 October 2009

The advent of the contraceptive pill, which became available on the NHS in the late 1960s, ushered in an era of sexual liberation and gave women, for the first time in history, control over their fertility. What it may also have done, according to a report in Scientific American on research done by scientists at Sheffield University, is alter women's taste in men. In a normal menstrual cycle, the scientists found, the hormonal changes occur around the time of ovulation tend to make women more attracted to rugged, manly men - that is to say those who, being genetically dissimilar to them, are more likely to father healthy children. The pill, however, suppresses this process, with the result that women start to prefer more sensitive-looking types (as they do ordinarily, at other times of the month) and those who are genetically more similar to them. Some commentators have speculated that this may in part account for the effeminate appearance of many of today's heart-throbs - Orlando Bloom, for example - which is markedly different to the macho look of film stars of the 1950s, such as Burt Lancaster and John Wayne. A quarter of women in Britain between the ages of 16 and 49 currently use the pill.

And then there is all the oestrogen in the water that gets turned into drinking water, feminism, and feminine traits that are lauded and tolerated at the expense of masculine virtues, turning us all into demented old women who think being offended is enough reason to stop rational debate ....

As a Libertarian, I am all for the legalisation of prostitution. This being so, prostitutes should be allowed to work in brothels for their own safety. Brothel-keeping is however illegal in this country.

The English Collective of Prostitutes http://www.prostitutescollective.net/ are campaigning for brothel-keeping to be legal, yet are strangely welcoming and tolerant of foreign hookers who come here and take the bread out of their mouths, lowering the prices in the same way that foreign competition from plumbers, workmen etc would lower wages for locals.

Perhaps this strangely contradictory position is something that is typically female. If I were an English prostitute I wouldn't be welcoming the competition, but perhaps it is a feminist sisterhood thing.

The government's desire to criminalise men who have transacted with women who turn out to have been "trafficked" may perhaps be some sneaky attempt by the government at immigration control. Trafficked women are after all deported.

It would appear that the Labour government cannot stop itself from interfering in people's lives and this must be fought tooth and nail by those of us who care for our liberties.

It is now illegal for policewomen to mind each other's children. Or to visit schools regularly without having to "prove" you are not a paedophile and pay the "paedophile tax".

First, they infantilise women and assume no rational woman would be a prostitute, and then criminalise anyone who wishes to transact with them.

The truth is that there are many women who prefer not to clean toilets and would rather not work in Primark. They choose prostitution for perfectly rational reasons of getting more money and spending less time doing less work. There is also undeniably an element of skill in this trade.

Compassion must be extended to men who cannot find wives and girlfriends to give sex to them for "free" and who have to buy sex on an ad hoc basis.

These men should not be victimised by the Fundamentalist Feminists who hate both men and women.

These "FundieFemmies" hate women because they wish to stop women from doing what they are best at doing, ie mothering and providing men with physical pleasure.

They make a point of sending mothers out to work and make a point of victimising prostitutes by creating restrictions that would endanger their lives, health and safety, such as criminalising brothel-keeping, which would at least allow them to work in safer conditions than in a kerb-crawling punter's car, his hotel room or any premises controlled by him.

What they should be doing is sanctify marriage again and discourage single mummery, but these FundieFemmies are immovable on the right of women to be as promiscuous as men, for their toxic ideological reasons.

Doesn't the Labour government know that they could tax the earnings of both prostitutes and brothel-keepers to assist in the National Debt, Balance of Payments and Tourism?

We know that many non-white men prefer blondes. To be a better-paid prostitute one would learn a variety of foreign languages and cultivate more feminine graces, which can only be a good thing. One cannot help but be reminded of famous and powerful courtesans such as Madame de Pompadour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_de_Pompadour.

Indeed, if one were to agree with the position that all women are prostitutes (because all men are punters), we would have a healthier and more compassionate attitude towards prostitution, and usher in a new Golden Age of Inter-Gender Entente, where family values reign, our children are biddable and a credit to their undivorced and unseparated biological parents.Why are the British allowing the likes of the discredited Harriet Harman of a discredited government to interfere and ruin the lives of yet more men and women?

Because they (and we) are all sad and mad and bad, irrational, hypocritical, cowardly and dishonest, that's why.

A new trend is emerging among single parents to advertise on the internet in order to set up flat shares with each other. The appeal of such an arrangement is to offer both single parent and child an expanded family set up in better accommodation than they would be able to afford otherwise. But economic advantage aside, is it a good idea? To discuss, Jenni is joined by Maria Roberts, author of ‘Single Mother on the Verge’ who is a supporter of such schemes and by psychologist Dr. Richard Woolfson.

‘Single Mother On The Verge’ by Maria Roberts is published by PenguinISBN -10: 0141037776

Another toxic destructive idea dreamt up by these depraved single mothers who are now increasing in number exponentially? Surely, but surely, it is a recipe for paedophilia, under aged sex, unwanted teenage pregnancy, child abuse and childhood traumas? It will all go wrong and then they will want taxpayers' money to bail them out, you mark my words.

When we are convulsing in our death throes through an excess of STDs and national dementia, feeble-minded through generations of bastardy and free for all sex, then the Muslims will take over.

Why are women so stupid? And why are British men so feeble-minded as to allow this sort of rot to go unchallenged?

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Are men naturally non-interventionists and women naturally censorious and interfering?

Is our nanny state the result of feminine values predominating and a national manifestation of feminine neurosis and irrationality?

Is Western civilisation doomed if it does not address this problem? Surely it must pull itself back into masculine preoccupations of analysis and rational problem-solving as opposed to feminine displacement activity?

History is replete with patriarchies while matriarchies are unheard of. Is it because matriarchies are by definition incapable of practising anything as civilised as reading and writing, because its natural state is simply breeding, emotionalism and barbarism?

The refusal to address the problem of single mummery is the chief reason why we have ever-declining educational standards which successive governments are too frightened to address for fear of giving offence to the illegitimate and the mothers of the illegitimate, and of course the female-dominated teaching profession.

Those who are illegitimate will have fewer inhibitions about having illegitimate children and so the rot slides down its slippery slope, and we with it.

46% of babies are now born out of wedlock.

70% of our prison population were singly-parented.

And still the liberal establishment will not speak out against single mummery.

Do such incompetents, cowards and hypocrites deserve to rule over those they regularly denounce as extremist, such as the BNP and the Muslims?

Feminine neurosis does not affect women alone. There are many emasculated liberal men who subscribe to all the irrational values of feminism and are permanently frightened of giving offence. Many of them are prominent male politicians. Some of them even support the paedophile tax (of paying £64 to the government to "prove" you are not a paedophile), even as they know that it would do nothing to protect children. These men are either eunuchs or drones.

Is it not time they were sent on their way, in favour of courageous, principled rational and masculine leadership or at least by women capable of thinking in these terms?

Good husbandry is a after all male concept. It means delegating that which needs delegating while you get on with more important matters. Women need to be kept properly occupied or they will simply interfere and impose their irrational emotionalism on everything and everyone else, to the detriment of society and the civilisation that that society is part of.

Why has gay bashing risen by 20% in London, ie in the Tower Hamlets - a predominantly Muslim area?

Is it because the Muslims (whose Koran informs them that homosexual acts are sinful) are beating up gays more than any other group?

Is it anything to do with the increasingly militancy of homosexuals and how they are perceived to be a sort of gay mafia taking over the country and given special privileges, and the "gayer than Labour" message the Tories are trying to give?

When two groups protected by PC legislation are in conflict with each other, who wins?

Hate Crime (ie assaulting or killing someone because you hate them) attracts a higher penalty than if you did not particularly hate them.

Why on earth would you attack or kill someone if you did not hate them?

So, attacking a homosexual, disabled person or someone on religious or racial grounds, would attract a higher penalty than if you attacked a member of the BNP, would it?

How does this square with the principle of equality before the law?

It's official then, is it, that here in the UK there is no equality before the law?

There is a very simple Libertarian solution to this: repeal all hate crime, which is but thoughtcrime. If you punish properly those who kill and attack others, then there would be no problem, would it?

It is just possible that our legislators have got their knickers in a twist and have had their knickers in a twist for a very long time.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

I would rather commit infanticide and put my hands up for it, just like the attention-seeking euthanasing travellers to Switzerland do, than

1) have an abortion2) bring up a mentally handicapped child3) inflict my mentally handicapped child on the taxpayer

Would my proposed course of action not make sense if you were one of those older mothers who may not have the chance to conceive again?

The advantage of my recommended course of action are:

1) I could enjoy my pregnancy.

2) I wouldn't be living with the guilt of perhaps needlessly aborting a child that turns out to be healthy after all.

3) I can always deal with the mentally handicapped baby discreetly after it is born.

I have been careful to explain my moral reasoning in case there is anyone reading this who could find herself in this position or is already in this position.

Don't have the test and don't have the abortion. Deal with it discreetly yourself later.

This is just a piece of advice for any of you older mothers that you won't have read anywhere else. You know it makes sense, morally, economically, legally and logistically.

Legally, you are unlikely to be shopped by your husband (who will be secretly relieved anyway) or family members and friends, who will understand, particularly if you do it secretly and contain the urge to discuss it with anyone at all.

You won't be subjected to an invasive medical procedure and will save precious NHS resources.

Do not be like my schoolfriend who had her one and only mentally handicapped child, ruined her marriage and now has no husband and no normal child to enquire after her health and find a good home for her in her dotage.

The answer to this problem is simple. Create a situation where women see it as an advantage to have children younger, and in wedlock too.

This is of course beyond the wit of the liberal establishment.

They of course prefer to wring their hands at the increase of single mummery, family breakdown, rising crime, ever-lowering standards of education and behaviour, make us pay paedophile and green taxes and rejecting any solution that might work because it might seem judgemental, intolerant and insufficiently compassionate.

Perhaps it is time they were sent on their way after so many decades in power.

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

I strongly oppose clauses on prostitution in the Policing and Crime Bill 2009 which would: make it easier for the police to arrest women for “loitering and soliciting”; extend “closure orders” against sex workers’ premises; introduce compulsory “rehabilitation” of sex workers under threat of imprisonment; arrest presumed kerb-crawlers on a first offence; introduce a strict liability offence of “paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force” (i.e. no need to show knowledge or recklessness); extend powers to search, seize and retain property under Proceeds of Crime legislation.

If these proposals become law, they will increase criminalisation and imprisonment, particularly of women, and push prostitution further underground, putting sex workers more at risk of violence. These measures should be withdrawn. I urge you to speak and vote against them when they come to the Lords.

"The strange, lonely and troubling death of Stephen Gately": why can't Jan Moir say this without being denounced? Are gays God now? Is being unflattering about a dead gay man and his partner who was enjoying himself with another, tantamount to blasphemy in our age of liberal extremism?

If a straight man was enjoying himself with another woman while his wife lay dead in the bedroom, we would be allowed to speculate on the morals of the deceased and his wife, would we not?

If a straight woman was enjoying himself with another man while her husband lay dead in the bedroom, we would be allowed to speculate on the morals of the deceased her husband, would we not?

• They are not as competitively minded about their jobs as men in older generations.• They are fashion conscious and eat sparingly so they can stay thin and fit into skintight clothes.• They are chummy with their moms and often go shopping together.• They are not interested in dating girls, having relationships, or even having sex (choosing from a plethora of "self-help" toys instead).• They are very tight with their money and often carry several retailers' "point cards" around, declaring that those who don't pinch pennies are stupid.

Ushikubo has even gone so far as giving these types a new label: ojo-man (ladylike men).

"Many of the boys I've met told me they cannot go out of their house if their hair doesn't look perfect," she said. "They have also told me that their self-esteem goes up when their nails look nice."

Ushikubo estimates that 60 percent of today's men aged 20-34 fall somewhat into the soshokukei category. Sounds exaggerated? Of the 500 single men in their 20s and 30s surveyed in March by Lifenet Seimei Life Insurance Co., 378 — or 75.6 percent — replied that they regarded themselves more as herbivores than nikushokukei (carnivores).

What is most troubling to a growing legion of young women, however, is that soshokukei men are also extremely noncommittal in their relationships with the opposite sex. Many are not interested in the act of koku-ru (confessing their love to girls), out of fear that doing so would make them psychologically disadvantaged, Ushikubo says. Furthermore, being cynical about the generation above them, in which nearly half of marriages are shotgun weddings, young people — and young men in particular — are very wary of making lifelong commitments "by accident," according to Ushikubo.

Likewise, they tend to have little interest in reproducing, often even being too physically tired to have sex, let alone start a family, according to Ushikubo. The young men's tendency not to have real sex — apparently counterbalanced by their growing reliance on Internet porn sites and "do-it-yourself" gadgets — is a big headache for the nation's condom makers, whose shipments have been falling since 1999, the very year that marks the beginning of the Internet revolution.

Meanwhile, a few other phenomena are underscoring the trend for some men to defy their sexual stereotypes. A 2007 survey by a major toilet-seat maker found that half of Japanese men sit on the toilet to urinate, while bras designed for men have been selling briskly since they hit the market last November.

But are women becoming like men as well? Are they more manly than they used to be?

He attributes the soshokukei trend to the postwar peace Japan has enjoyed for the last six decades.

"The most 'manly' men, I think, are soldiers on the battlefields," Morioka said. "But the pressures for men to act manly have gradually faded over the last six decades. As a result, the (per capita) rate of murders committed by men in their 20s in Japan is now the lowest in the world.

"Behind all this is the fading of social values that have driven men into violent acts. Men don't have to be violent any more, and that's why they can be herbivorous."

... most Japanese men are "searching for heterosexual love while turning unisex."

I fear that this is a problem of prolonged peace, for which the solution is obvious.

Doncha hate the way the Tories are sucking up to gay and lesbian community???"!!!

As well as the idiotic broccoli logo we now have this stupid rainbow which is intended to appeal to the kiddywinx we have all been dumbed down to, I suppose.

If I were Tory Party leader I would offer to simultaneously promise to abolish Inheritance Tax and the civil partnership. They should be tolerated but are not the equal of couples who enter a supposedly life-long commitment to bring up the next generation.

The Koran deals very wisely with the question of tolerance without conferring equality.

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

To address the problem of spousal exploitation, I would pass a law requiring all couples to sign up a marriage contract before a marriage is legally recognised by law. For any contract to be valid, a mediator or an odd number of mediators would have to be appointed by the couple. This is to enable one of them to complain about the unreasonable behaviour of the other, before getting to the end of their tether and resorting to knifing their husbands.

The wife can then ring her mediator and say: "He insists on buggering me every time we have sex. I don't enjoy it and I have had enough. Nowhere does it say in our marriage contract that a conjugal obligation exists on my part to submit to this disgusting and perverted practice. Could you have a word with him, please?"

Tuesday, 29 September 2009

That girls who are looking forward to having lots of sex should beware?

That those who think they can avoid the consequences of promiscuity should beware?

I was dead against this unasked for a drug that nobody asked for which would only have encouraged promiscuity in women thinking that they would be protected after taking it.

The taxpayer would be paying for this and the manufacturers of this drug would get the money. Our daughters will be harmed by becoming sexually active at an ever-earlier age, more men would be accused of paedophilia, and relations poisoned between men and women, adult and child.

The harm of starting sex early is that a young girl

1) thinks it is acceptable to use sex as a way of attracting attention

2) would be more vulnerable to unwanted pregnancy

3) would be more vulnerable to exploitation

4) is on the road to casual sex as a lifestyle choice

5) is vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases which may cause cancer

6) inevitably has regrets, when she is older, at the way she allowed herself to be exploited

I would have thought this was obvious, but in this age and in this country, this sort of thing just has to be pointed out again and again, because decades of liberal parenting has driven common prudence out of the window, and cowardly liberal parents no longer think it their place to talk to their children about sex, out of fear of embarrassing their children, or worse, embarrassing themselves.

They leave such things to the tender mercies of the state sex education and pharmaceutical companies.

Thursday, 24 September 2009

This country is now on the brink of serious moral collapse. We must stop demonising men and start healing the rift that feminism has created between men and women.

Harriet Harman's insidious and manipulative philosophy that women are always victims and men always oppressors can only continue this unspeakable cycle of violence. And it's our children who will suffer.

Monday, 21 September 2009

"What we have left, thanks to this evil movement, is a vast number of lone women trying to keep what is left of family life going. They never asked to be foot soldiers in what has become a feminazi army. They were not blessed with skills and college degrees that gave them economic power to make decisions when they were abandoned by their men. They believed that the feminist movement was going to offer them choices. What they did not understand was that there were never any choices. Men, realizing that they had been cast in the role of sexual monsters, retaliated. Those that didn't pitch into the war of the sexes with relish, simply faded away. Women facing the new millennium have few choices. One of them must be to take back our homes and our families from the clutch of the feminist movement."

Women need to speak out against feminism, but are they too stupid and cowardly to do so?

Too busy at work? Too busy neglecting their children and divorcing their husbands?

To busy with their sex and shopping, their aromatherapy, sunbeds, breast implants, liposuction, botox, Brazillians, bathing with candlelight in their bathrooms, and drinking more white wine than is strictly good for them to deal with the stress they get from work, while they are worrying about where the next meal is coming from?

Fill me in, ladies, fill me in on your day and tell me why you are too busy to enter the debate or do anything about anything.

Thursday, 17 September 2009

Women like to fuss and this means big government. Men like to get on with the important things of life and prefer small government. The more work women take on, the more they whinge and fuss, the higher their status. The less men are bogged down by detail through good husbandry, the more likely they are to get on with important things, like reasoning and debating. Women like and want to be part of the nanny state. Real men prefer small government. Women have puritanical traits, men libertarian traits. Which is to be preferred?

Monday, 14 September 2009

Women are mostly in the dishonourable position of wishing to wound but afraid to strike. This was how Michael Portillo described himself when he could have made a bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party, when his courage failed him.

Women judge but do not condemn and rarely have the courage of their own convictions. They also have a horror of making fools of themselves or sticking their head above the parapet.

Most of them like hanging on to their sense of virtue while getting men to do their dirty work, such as taking the rubbish out, dealing with intruders, bringing home the bacon, and squashing that bug.

Have our political classes taken on the worst vices of women unbeknownst to us?

Are they behaving like a neurotic and feeble-minded old nanny suffering from Alzheimers who has not yet quite got round to telling her charges, now all well over 21, that Santa Claus does not in fact exist?

She fears that they will be first disappointed to learn of his non-existence and then become angry that they have been lied to for so long.

This may explain why Tory and Labour are playing this insane word game of talking about cuts without saying the C word, as well as pretending that there exists a distinction between cuts in public expenditure and cuts in public services.

Do the British deserve to be ruled by a bunch of old women? Perhaps most of them behave and think like a bunch of demented, frightened, malicious old hags, but surely there must a few who have such some passing acquaintance with the masculine concepts of honour, courage, truth and straight-talking?

Friday, 11 September 2009

David Alexander Hough a Labour-supporting teacher in Essex opined on Facebook that if teachers had to have CRB checks, then school visitors such as writers should be subjected to the same indignity, in order to pursue his twisted idea of equal opportunities government persecution. David Alexander Hough is a very Politically Correct Man indeed.

The most important thing for him was that something must be seen to be done, even if it will do no one any good, for the sake of the kiddywinks ...

If this isn't feminine dementia contracted by men, then I don't know what is.

Typical woman: in the dishonourable position of wishing to wound, but afraid to strike. Vacillating, irrational, hypocritical frightened women, who rarely have the courage of their convictions, in case they offend against their own sex by seeming harsh, judgemental and uncompassionate.

After all, they prefer to let someone else - men - pick up the pieces and do their dirty work, eg squashing that bug, pulling the trigger etc, after they have wasted everyone's time and allowed more time for things to get worse while they fuss with their hair, fix their nails, look in the mirror, dither about and examine the contents of their handbag ....

Monday, 7 September 2009

Barnardo's is of the opinion that removing potentially feral children from obviously unfit parents early would save a few lives and the general public from being upset by more scummy never-married mummies with scummy boyfriends who kill their children, or scummy parents who bring up scummy children who kill and torture other people's children for their amusement and entertainment.

Why does the government not take this idea to its logical conclusion and discourage the reproductive choices of sluts, slags and slappers?

The withdrawal of universal child benefit would be a start.

These women, though uneducated, are not completely stupid and will know on which side of their bread is buttered. They will soon stop indulging their low-life tastes if they know there is no financial reward in a lifetime of unmarried parenthood bringing up their variously-fathered feral children at taxpayer expense.

Educated middle class careerwomen are now doing the same. Mary F Pols, a writer and film critic, has now written a book about how she got pregnant "accidentally on purpose". A sitcom glamorising her story suggests that this societal cancer is most probably terminal. Once the illegitimate outnumber the legitimate, civilisational extinction becomes inevitable.

Think of a whole civilisation dying of gangrene and you will get the idea.

Making bastardy and divorce a disgrace again would be an obvious solution.

Unfortunately, this shows no signs of happening because single British men want cheap and easy access to their infamously promiscuous women.

Married men are too frightened of being divorced by their wives, ie having their property confiscated and being deprived of their children, simply for questioning the benefits of feminism.

Most women are too dim and insecure to give up their rights. They also lack the objectivity to see the effects of female promiscuity on society as a whole.

Members of the British political classes are too cowardly, promiscuous, proud and stubborn to make this link. They are also too "compassionate", apparently.

Perhaps the best way of putting it is that they are all too pussy-whipped and enjoy that experience a little too much than is strictly good for them.

The patriarchy has been all but destroyed. Why do we never hear of matriarchies? Because they were all invariably primitive and had no written means with which to record their tragic folly.

The ever-lowering standards of British "education" is entirely due to the female-dominated educational establishment progressively dumbing-down to accommodate the unsocialised little bastards who form a significant intake of state schools.

Soon, the innumerate, illiterate and illegitimate British will be living like animals, copulating with anything and in all the combinations we fancy, just like the Bonobo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo, producing illegitimate feral children and no doubt eating them or killing them as the mood takes us, and behaving and living just like the animals that we are so sentimental about.

Sunday, 6 September 2009

I do believe Britain will now be entirely at the mercy of its enemies.

I was at Chatham Docks yesterday and saw a group of about ten naval cadets and noticed that at least three were female.

Rage, disgust, horror and an inevitable sense of helplessness engulfed me. They already have a well-established reputation for getting knocked up and then complaining about sex discrimination and harassment.

Is there no escaping this contagion of feminism even in the Queen's Navy?

They are also weaker, dimmer and tend to rely on the natural gallantry of men to help them lift heavy objects and do mental arithmetic.

Or else they rely on the confined spaces and close living quarters to stir red-blooded men into a understandable frenzy of sexual frustration so they can feel more attractive and powerful than they might otherwise be on dry land, when men have the luxury of choice.

Either way, the effect of it is to distract the men from their duties and to demoralise them so that the British are even more vulnerable to their enemies.

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

They probably do, though I haven't read any books by any female historians lately. Western society is now morbidly over-feminised, with the worst aspects of the feminine character now manifesting itself: social cowardice, excessive emotionalism, an inability to reason and worst of all, masochism and victimhood.

We now have our Foreign Secretary emoting about how angry, upset and distressed he is by the behaviour of another country and must now be the laughing stock of the world, who will be picturing the British gathering up their skirts in indignation, flouncing off the world stage and slamming the door.

Let us have no more of this stupid girly stuff!

Perhaps we need homosexual men like David Starkey and Peter Mandelson (who are not vulnerable to the crushing toxicity of feminism or in danger of his wife threatening to divorce him and take half his stuff at the drop of a hat) to tell it like it is.

Of course, if Peter and I were to form an alliance, we would sign a very interesting partnership contract indeed. It could well be the model for others too. It would be worth doing just to test drive my idea of how to safeguard the property of the wealthier partner while doing justice to the less wealthy partner.

No doubt the rest of the world thinks that the average Briton is some promiscuous single mother who will be entrusting her child to some scummy drug-addicted paedophile boyfriend who will kill it after sexually assaulting it.

Fiona McKeown was the first in this series of typical British mums now internationally infamous.

Then there was Baby P's mother.

Then the Dundee case.

Now the lorrydriver boyfriend with a history of domestic violence who hanged himself. (His girlfriend's 9 year old daughter was found strangled in his cab.)

While it is no skin off my nose that these people use their children as a means of acquiring more benefits from the state, hire them out to perform kiddy porn, turn them into sex slaves, let them get knocked up by some other CHAV at their local sink school comp, sell them for meat or whatever, it is actually very distressing to many people of a more sensitive disposition.

What I am concerned with is the lowering of Britain's already devalued reputation as a result of these stories.

Surely people abroad will soon be pointing at white trash types they see and jeer at them, saying:

"You're mostly paedophiles, aren't you? Bet you're bastard or a bastard-breeder. Bet you have a history of drug and drink problems and have never worked in your life. Have you had sex with your girlfriend's under-aged child yet? When are you going to kill it?" etc etc

How many more, I wonder, before the liberal elite will question the wisdom of unregulated female promiscuity whose practitioners are sponsored by the taxpayer?

Remember, dear reader, when you read of the next Baby P-type death, you should rejoice at the fact that we are in fact closer to getting the government to do something about this insanity. But perhaps they will continue to ignore the problem until the underclasses have killed off all their own children, which would be no bad thing, I suppose, if they are all going to grow up into the next generation of Tracey Connelly-types if they are female and her boyfriends if they are male, or become one of those 11 year olds who tortured Jamie Bulger to death for fun.

I am assuming that the government may get round to doing something about it soon, but they may just prefer to sit back and let the problem solve itself.

After all, it wouldn't do to suggest that the unmarried and promiscuous mother is akin to a parasite or a cancer, would it?

It seems they fear losing votes if they sound too censorious, but do parasites and cancers vote? I rather think not.

The extreme timorousness of HMG and its opposition is therefore, to me anyway, a bit of a mystery.

Monday, 31 August 2009

Just spoke to a friend who was telling me about his phobia of the dentists and his unexpectedly pleasant recent experience with a female dentist whose cleavage he was enthusiastically describing to me. I remarked that the sight of it must have been very calming and undoubtedly helped take his mind off things. He wants to go back now, more often than is in fact necessary.

I think he has been "groomed".

I think women are groomed too. A very attractive dental hygienist (who necessarily gets her work from regularly returning patients) would rest her bosom against my face as she worked on my gnashers.

Yes, guys, it was very nice indeed. My emotions were that of surprise and a certain amount of gratified pleasure.

"Do you really fancy me or do you really not know you are doing this?" I wondered .

Of course you would never dream of saying anything, because that would ruin everything. That is how they get you to come back again and again to wonder again and again ....

It is probably part of their training now.

Module 24: FOR WOMEN ONLY!How to make even the most phobic patients want to come back to you - the dentist! - again and again.

Wear a nice top that shows off your cleavage.

Speak kindly to your patient and be gentle with him or her.

If they appear to like you you can start leaning over them.

Once they have closed their eyes, you can begin your work.

If they do not flinch from contact you know you've got them!

The dentist's chair is an item of furniture associated with pain and pleasure.

Sunday, 30 August 2009

Would this situation, ignored in the short, medium and long term, be in effect geno-suicide?

Do you think the government will do anything about this or sweep it under the carpet until we all die off like dodos? (This would mean tackling feminism, overhauling the family courts, having confrontations and controversy - all the things our political classes dread.)

Which is the more likely scenario, would you say, dear reader?

Yet another male marriage strike link tells me that things are looking very bad, even for much younger and far more attractive women than I.

Soon, we will all be forced to become Muslims to get a man to actually marry us and then be forced to share him with the others. I wouldn't mind in principle, if I got along with his other wives, but it is not everyone's cup of tea, is it? Islamic state, anyone?